SCA/9923/2008 2/ 2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9923 of 2008 ========================================== BHIMABHAI SANGANBHAI KHUNTI - Petitioner(s) Versus PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. (ERSTWHILE GUJ.ELECTRIC BOARD) - Respondent(s) ========================================== Appearance : MR AMAR D MITHANI for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 04/08/2008 ORAL ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner-original defendant has prayed for appropriate writ,
order or direction and to quash and set aside the order dated
17/01/2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge in Civil
Miscellaneous Application No. 25/2007 in rejecting the said
application, which was to condone the delay of 682 days, in
preferring the appeal challenging the judgement and decree passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Porbandar dated 16/02/2007
in Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2003.
2. A
decree came to be passed against the petitioner-original defendant on
merits after hearing the petitioner on 16/02/2007. Against the said
judgement and decree, after a period of two years, four months and
twelve days, an application for condonation of delay in preferring
the appeal was filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act requesting to condone the delay, which came to be
dismissed by the learned appellate Court, against which, the present
Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed.
3. It
is true that normally ýSsufficient causeýý should be construed
liberally but that does not mean that no explanation whatsoever is
required to be given by the petitioner.0 requesting to condone the
delay. On considering the application for condonation of delay,
which is only in one small paragraph, no explanation worth is given
by the petitioner in support of his prayer to condone the delay of
two years, four months and twelve days.
4. Considering
the above, when the learned appellate Court has dismissed the
application for condonation of delay, it cannot be said that the
learned appellate Court has committed an error, which calls for
interference of this Court to exercise its powers under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in the
present Special Civil Application and the same is dismissed
accordingly.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji